Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Myron N. Crisdon v. Nj Department of Education
April 13, 2011
MYRON N. CRISDON, PLAINTIFF,
NJ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
This matter having come before the Court on the motion of defendant, New Jersey Department of Education, to dismiss pro se plaintiff Myron Crisdon's complaint against it; and Plaintiff claiming in his complaint that defendant failed to issue him a high school diploma after he met the high school graduation requirements in the spring of 2006, and as a result, plaintiff was unable to pursue his dream of becoming a professional basketball player; and Plaintiff claiming that defendant's failure to issue him his high school diploma violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights;*fn1 and Plaintiff demanding $100 million in damages, and $50 million in punitive damages from defendant; and Defendant having moved to dismiss*fn2 plaintiff's complaint because it is barred on the basis of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution;*fn3 and The Court agreeing with defendant that because defendant is the state of New Jersey, plaintiff's claims against it are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, see Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979) (reaffirming "that a suit in federal court by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment"); Employees of Dept. of Public Health & Welfare v. Dept. of Public Health & Welfare, 411 U.S. 279, 280 (1973) (stating that even though the text of the Eleventh Amendment expressly bars suits in federal court against states by citizens of other states and foreign states, the Amendment has been broadly interpreted to provide immunity to an unconsenting state for "suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well"); Melo v. Hafer, 912 F.2d 628, 636 (3d Cir. 1990) (finding that the Eleventh Amendment has been interpreted to bar suits for monetary damages by private parties in federal court against a state, state agencies, or state employees sued in their official capacity); and The Court noting that plaintiff has not opposed defendant's motion;*fn4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY on this 13th day of April, 2011 ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss  is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to mark this matter as CLOSED.
At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. ...
Buy This Entire Record For